Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

After reading this thread, I'm torn over being disgusted with some posters comments, suggesting that justice includes revenge or being dis-heartened by folks who seem to think that some mental health issues are unworthy of treatment. I ask some of you, to take a minute and trade places with this person. As someone who has battled mental disease all my life, I cannot even begin to explain to you how hard that battle can be, especially when people, just like you, don't think you deserve the treatment you need to live a meaningful life.

Our Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment" and for good reason. What some of you propose, by denying the required medical services to this person, is to condemn them for life, to a living hell. That's not justice, that's revenge. That goes way beyond what justice required, which has already been determined by a court of law.

One last point is that maybe you folks, who have never been touched by mental illness, should be careful about your assumptions. I guarantee that most of what you "believe" about mental illness is wrong and your comments only confirm my point. Be careful commenting about things of which you know little.

Well, then let's just kill all the convicts. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for their food, lodging, etc. It should not matter why she is in prison. This is a MEDICAL QUESTION - at present, the state pays all her medical bills -- that means ALL her medical bills. I'm good with excluding elective care -- this has been deemed as necessary care by her doctors.Who's paying for YOUR medical care - BTW?? I'm sure there are some taxpayers who would object.

Although -- I do appreciate the fact that you aren't trying to twist logic to support your postion. You are stating it plainly, you see convicts as less than human and not deserving of human rights.

M

Mike

There is no logic in your opinion. You don't think the victims family wouldn't like their family member back? Do you think it was humane for this person to take the life of another? What gives this person any rights? Had it been your relative Mike you would agree to it? I think not.

Did you happen to read what the victims relative said?

Brandel said that if Kosilek ultimately has the operation, she has hopes for what happens when the surgery begins.

“With luck, he will die on the operating table,’’ said Brandel, who has worked in health care for 22 years. “I would never, ever wish harm on anybody but him.’’ She added, “Did he care what he did to my aunt? No, he didn’t.’’

I'm so sick of the finger pointing. On this issue some of us disagree then all of sudden we must hate/revile or do not understand the struggle of all transgender folks? No, I am thoroughly disgusted by the accusation and you should be ashamed for trying to make the leap.

As for whomever said we must not be educated on the issues that is a complete fallacy. Do you assume anyone who has a disagreement with you must not be educated? That is the height of self-importance.

For all the longing and mental anguish I am sure this person must be going through I still don't support taxpayer funds paying for sex reassignment surgery.

There is no logic in your opinion. You don't think the victims family wouldn't like their family member back? Do you think it was humane for this person to take the life of another? What gives this person any rights? Had it been your relative Mike you would agree to it? I think not.

Did you happen to read what the victims relative said?

Brandel said that if Kosilek ultimately has the operation, she has hopes for what happens when the surgery begins.

“With luck, he will die on the operating table,’’ said Brandel, who has worked in health care for 22 years. “I would never, ever wish harm on anybody but him.’’ She added, “Did he care what he did to my aunt? No, he didn’t.’’

Actually, my opinion DID have logic. Yours is purely emotion based. The victim's family would likely say the same thing if we were talking about a kidney transplant or a bypass. Justice is not based on emotion, revenge is. If you believe in an eye for an eye, fine.I have yet to hear anyone raise a reason to not pay for this other than thinking the person or the condition is not worthy. That is usually the argument used for keeping rights from any "other" group.

Nobody gives up their right to humane treatment by committing a criminal act.

Joe

I'll guess I will come down off the fence now.

Incarceration in and of itself is inhumane. It is not natural to lock a human up in a cage, it is inhumane. But so is murdering another human, that is inhumane. So when you commit certain grievous criminal acts you in essence give up your right to humane treatment. Now we on the outside like to label our treatment of our prisoners as "humane" so we can sleep at night in our cozy homes and warm beds, but who are we kidding.

Now this inmate is already paying for his crime by being locked up, so IMHO any punishment above and beyond that is excessive. I think denying him this surgery is excessive punishment since a doctor deems it medically necessary, and since potentially if he was not incarcerated he could work and save up for the surgery himself (remember he is already paying his debt to society by serving time, I dont think his debt to society extends beyond that).

Give him his surgery.

For the people on the outside, Im not convinced we should be using taxpayer money for these types of surgeries. They can work and save up for it.So I guess Ill go back up on the fence with that.

That's total BS Jan. A murdering convict doesn't have any rights. You wouldn't be giving a convict any rights had the victum been one of your family members. How about one of your grand children now would you still have the same feelings. I bet not.

That's total BS Jan. A murdering convict doesn't have any rights. You wouldn't be giving a convict any rights had the victum been one of your family members. How about one of your grand children now would you still have the same feelings. I bet not.

Are you just being dense here? OF COURSE a victims family would want to lash out and get revenge. However, they don't get to be the judge -- for very good reason. As I and others have pointed out, emotions don't equate to justice, they equal revenge. If you can't grasp a simple concept like that, stop debating. I mean the Supreme Court has sided with prisoners on a number of cases over the years, so people who are far more informed in the law and the US Constitution than you are have already considered your moronic stand and disagreed with it.

I am open to honest debate -- but I haven't heard any compelling or logical reason for not following the doctor and judge's decisions.

Would it make a difference all you have found time to do is come back with insults when people disagree with you. Now who is being dense here Mike? The question is was asked should taxpayers pay from a convicts sex reassignment and several answered no so you can argue your point all you like you aren't going to get us to change are minds to appease you.

What is evident in much of the posts of those who are against taxpayers footing the bill for prisoner sex reassignment surgery for the prisoner is a belief in a concept formulated in the early 19th century known as "less eligibility." The premise is that the criminal justice system and other social systems must present to its usual subjects (criminals, the unemployed, underemployed, and the poor generally) punishments or conditions that are worse than the conditions of life in the "free world." Supposedly, this is to serve as a deterrent to people wanting to commit crimes or end up in any of these "undesirable" categories ['undesirable' becomes defined by those in power or those in the presumed 'desirable' categories].

As stated early on in this thread - the underlying basis that drives some people to want to deprive the person in prison of this surgery is indeed a slippery slope. Because it is a core belief in many elements of society that has been applied outside of the prison walls to other "categories" of people - namely the poor, gays, the disabled, etc.

"Less eligibility was a condition of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834.[1] It was intended to make workhouses a deterrent . It stated that working conditions in the workhouse had to be worse than the worst job possible outside the workhouse. This principle existed to deter people from claiming poor relief."

This is the line of thought that makes some states deprive people of having certain assets when qualifying for public assistance. Because God forbid a person on assistance should own a home, when the person who is not on assistance can not afford to do so..... This line of thinking actually led to a case in NYC years ago where a mother who was on welfare was required to move out of the home she owned and move into a "welfare hotel" in order to receive benefits and transportation for her disabled child to be taken to school.

The cost of moving her out of her home, paying the monthly welfare hotel fees, transportation fees to get her child to school, food stamps, etc. was more than 5 times the amount it would have cost to allow her to stay in her home and receive the benefits needed for assist her with caring for her child. But, this belief that she should not be entitled to have "more than what someone who was not on assistance has - less eligibility" created a situation where society was willing to pay more for her not to have.....

I'm sure many on here have experienced this same line of thinking.... we deprive people instead of perhaps examining what is preventing those in the so-called regular society from having.

A normal distinction was made between people,in terms of whether they were 'deserving' or not of social welfare.The concept of 'less eligibility' was explicitly developed and access to welfare was gained by passing certain 'test' e.g. Willingness to work, willingness to give up certain liberties. During the 19th century, governments used social policy to contain and deter the growing demand for social welfare.

Maybe its time to provide universal healthcare, time to ensure that people are able to achieve the dream of home ownership, and quit trying to follow a concepts, policies, and activities that are based on the flawed belief of "less eligiblity" - which has not been shown to reduce the number of people in prison, the number of people living in poverty, the number of people with disabilities, etc.

Provide the surgery and fix the flaw that exist in the "free" society of denial of equal access to healthcare to the general populace.

Basically, this is the same concept that leads the US to provide SSI and Social Security disability payments that are so low; unemployment payments that are low; food stamp benefits that are low; lack of access to healthcare for those who are perhaps single and working in lower wage positions; lack of gender reassignment surgery coverage by many insurance companies; lack of benefits to same-sex couples....

It is the "power" structures way of trying to discourage/eliminate what they see as unwanted behaviors, classes, "undesirables," etc..... A method of cruel control.

As the article in the link shows, it is a flawed concept and fails to address things such as the provision of a truly living wage for the employed, equal access to healthcare, fair and humane benefits for those who are disabled, etc.

The denial of rights to those incarcerated has been proven to do nothing to lower the rate of recidivism or crime. In fact, those countries that provide full rights to those incarcerated actually have lower rates of incarceration and crime than those countries that deprive inmates of these rights. Simple research will prove this statement.

One very telling aspect of this thread is the repeated use of the male pronoun by some people when talking about Michelle Kosilek. It points to a fundamental ignorance and lack of understanding of what being transgendered is all about. This person is a woman who happens to have male physical characteristics through some "accident of birth" (for want of a better phrase coming to me), a biological dysfunction which is still not fully understood by medical science.

Anyone remember the days when hiv was not fully understood by medical science and the hell positive people were put through as a result? It still isn't fully understood. That doesn't make it any less real, or any less a serious medical condition which requires treatment.

---

One thing that really disturbs me which has yet to be mentioned in this thread is this; we are talking about a WOMAN, who is currently incarcerated in an ALL MALE correctional facility. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that little mentioned fact. Talk about inhumane treatment. I know I certainly wouldn't want to be locked up with a bunch of men for the rest of my life. I would feel in constant danger and very, very vulnerable.

---

A few people have said something along the lines of "what if you were this victim's family?" For me, it would be enough that the perpetrator of the crime was incarcerated - for the protection of others. I would not want that person to go without food, shelter or health care deemed necessary by medical science. I'm not a vindictive person. I also do not support the death penalty. Taking a life is wrong and two wrongs do not make a right. Withholding necessary medical treatment is also wrong, regardless of whom you are withholding it from. Necessary medical treatment is a basic human right, not a luxury.

---

While I do not in any way think it was right for Michelle Kosilek to take another human being's life, I have to wonder what drove her to it. As a transgendered woman, was she being mentally tortured by her wife? Although transgender rights have come a long way since 1990 when she committed murder (and still have far to go), in 1990 she would have likely had very little recourse or resources to help her deal with what may have been going on.

I fully admit that this is pure speculation on my part, but my gut instinct tells me that the transgender issue had a lot to do with what took place. If there had been help and support available to her in the years leading up to and including 1990, perhaps things never would have escalated to the point of murder. I have not been able to find any news reports from 1990 that may shed some light on purported motives - has anyone else had any luck (or interest) in this aspect of the situation?

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I think Phil hit the nail on the head. It’s not that most don’t understand the negative implications to a transgendered individual who doesn’t receive the necessary medical treatment. They disagree and are outraged with the fact that people in the same condition, in free society, do not easily have the same access to such treatment. While the medical community has since jumped into the 21st century and deemed this procedure medically necessary, insurance companies have not followed suit. Therefore, for most, this procedure would be unattainable in most situations. Should the 8th amendment not apply to all U.S. citizens, whether they are incarcerated or not?

Not only is this individual receiving treatment at taxpayers expense, she also had the opportunity to bring this issue to court. At taxpayers expense, I might ad. Something, again, which is not financially feasible to most in this situation. And I doubt if an individual in free society were to bring his/her issue before a judge, the outcome would be much different.

I agree with Phil. Not only regading fixing equal healthcare to ALL, but applying the the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights to ALL citizens. It drives me crazy when I hear people talk about "gay rights.". There is no such thing as gay rights.

Using your logic, trans who cannot pay for their surgeries should be better robbing a bank or commiting any type of crime and getting their surgeries approved and made in prison.

Raf, I think you're arguing from a purely emotional standpoint. The law doesn't work that way.

Once someone is in prison they automatically come under the domain and purview of the authorities/ the State and they become subject to different rules and regulations. Those rules seek to punish them but the State, all the same, guarantees certain protections and rights as human beings.

I'll offer you a countervailing example to the one you put forward:- if someone commits suicide in their home (unless it is a result of coercion or the like) no one else can be held directly responsible, but if this happens in prison the person on whose watch this occurred would be held accountable and answerable. Likewise, the State is directly responsible for the physical and mental well-being of the prisoners notwithstanding their offences etc.

In addition to Miss P's link here's the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners as prescribed by the United Nations High Commission of Human Rights.

I think Phil hit the nail on the head. It’s not that most don’t understand the negative implications to a transgendered individual who doesn’t receive the necessary medical treatment. They disagree and are outraged with the fact that people in the same condition, in free society, do not easily have the same access to such treatment. While the medical community has since jumped into the 21st century and deemed this procedure medically necessary, insurance companies have not followed suit. Therefore, for most, this procedure would be unattainable in most situations. Should the 8th amendment not apply to all U.S. citizens, whether they are incarcerated or not?

Not only is this individual receiving treatment at taxpayers expense, she also had the opportunity to bring this issue to court. At taxpayers expense, I might ad. Something, again, which is not financially feasible to most in this situation. And I doubt if an individual in free society were to bring his/her issue before a judge, the outcome would be much different.

I agree with Phil. Not only regading fixing equal healthcare to ALL, but applying the the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights to ALL citizens. It drives me crazy when I hear people talk about "gay rights.". There is no such thing as gay rights.

Raf, I think you're arguing from a purely emotional standpoint. The law doesn't work that way.

Once someone is in prison they automatically come under the domain and purview of the authorities/ the State and they become subject to different rules and regulations. Those rules seek to punish them but the State, all the same, guarantees certain protections and rights as human beings.

I'll offer you a countervailing example to the one you put forward:- if someone commits suicide in their home (unless it is a result of coercion or the like) no one else can be held directly responsible, but if this happens in prison the person on whose watch this occurred would be held accountable and answerable. Likewise, the State is directly responsible for the physical and mental well-being of the prisoners notwithstanding their offences etc.

Emotional or not, I bet that many people who are saving for years, or trying to get ASOs to help them to get their surgeries (even diagnosed and everything) won't find funny that a murderer got the operation they are desperate to get, free, and with their taxes money.

I get clearly your point, but If the state have obligations with the people IN prison, they should have with the people outside, specially with the taxpayers.

It appears that "Obamacare" would perhaps provide a loophole, which would allow prisoners to be covered for hospitalizations lasting 24 hours or longer (as the incarcerated person who is in a community-based hospital for more than 24 hours would no longer be categorized as incarcerated - allowing for expanded Medicaid (which would cover those with incomes up to 133% of FPL to be covered) to kick in. This would actually be a plus for state prison budgets as the states could then rely/defer to the feds to pick up the tab for hospital services that they currently have to fund out of their own budgets.

Would it make a difference all you have found time to do is come back with insults when people disagree with you. Now who is being dense here Mike? The question is was asked should taxpayers pay from a convicts sex reassignment and several answered no so you can argue your point all you like you aren't going to get us to change are minds to appease you.

I'm not trying to change your mind darling. I wasn't calling you dense for your opinion, I was calling you dense because you keep using emotion as a basis to decide LAW. YOU were the one who accused me of lacking logic earlier -- I merely was pointing out that you were being emotional and emotion does not dictate justice. Of course, you avoided responding to that.You have a right to your emotion and your opinion -- but I'm not going to sit by when you say I am lacking logic when, in fact, it is your opinion that lacks logic.

Highly pitched thread. Here is a different spool used to sew a similar garment about prisoners and healthcare written by Elton John recently concerning prisoners and HIV that appeared in The Washington Post.

Excerpt:

"...HIV-positive prisoners also face barriers to accessing the treatment they need to manage their disease and keep it from progressing — treatment, which we now know, doubles as prevention. And by depriving HIV-positive prisoners of equal treatment, Alabama and South Carolina promote fear, prejudice, and even violence against them..."